2014 colorado student assessment and growth results
TRANSCRIPT
Ell iott Asp, Special Assistant to the Commissioner Alyssa Pearson, Executive Director of Accountability and Data Analysis
Joyce Zurkowski, Executive Director of Assessment
2014 Colorado Student Assessment and Growth
Results
August 2014
Presentation Agenda
2
Historical Overview of Assessment System 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Subject 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Disaggregated Group 2014 Summary of Status and Growth Highlights
In 1996, we did not have a consistent way to measure our students’ proficiency in relationship to state standards.
3
• From 1997-2006, the legislature expanded the CSAP assessment system to include reading, writing and math assessments in grades 3-10.
• Districts supported the expansion as it provided longitudinal performance data.
CSAP/TCAP Achievement
4
Beginning in 1997, student proficiency data was available statewide. As we added assessments, we could more fully understand how our education system functioned in relationship to reading, writing, math and science as a state, and by individual districts, schools, and disaggregated groups of students.
We were also able to determine the achievement trajectory of student performance over time and the extent of the achievement gap.
Understanding TCAP Results
Achievement results provide information about: How students are performing
each year in relation to performance levels based on grade level expectations.
Results are provided at the student,
school, district and state level, and by disaggregated groups.
Colorado led the country in developing a way to understand how students progressed year to year.
5
In 2009, Colorado first publicly reported the results of the Colorado Growth Model, which provided another dimension to understanding student performance.
Understanding Growth Results
Colorado Growth Model results provide information about: how much students grew
relative to their academic peers
if that growth was enough to reach or maintain proficiency
Results are provided at the student, school, district and state level, and by disaggregated groups.
Adequate growth is defined by catch-up and keep-up growth.
6
Looking at the percent of students making adequate growth, al lowed us to understand gaps in growth along with proficiency.
What is adequate growth? Catch-Up Growth: Previously non-proficient students who made enough growth to be Proficient or Advanced within the next 3 years or by 10th grade.
Keep-Up Growth: Previously Proficient and Advanced students who made enough growth to remain in the Proficient category in each of the next three years or by 10th grade.
The statewide assessment system has provided comparable
information about the health of our education system, over these last 17 years. Let’s look at what we have learned.
2014 marks the last year that comparable achievement data will be available under the CSAP/TCAP system.
7
Achievement data provides information to identify student needs in relationship to proficiency on the state standards.
8
42.35
50.64 52.4 53.08 53.2 54.47
54.86 55.73 55.8 56.68 56.35
66.11 66.29 67.65 67.22 67.77 68.26 68.4 67.91 69.32 69.53 68.96
52.58 54.27 53.78 53.89 53.4 54.75
52.97 55.31 54.04 55.03 54.36
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Math Reading Writing
Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced by Subject, 2004 through 2014
With growth data, we’ve been able to track the percentage of students making enough growth to catch-up.
9
13.8 12.5 14.7 13.0 11.5 13.9 12.7 13.5 12.1 12.4 11.2
36.2 32.6 34.0
31.2 32.7 33.6 34.9
29.2 32.6 32.1 30.9
34.6 31.2
27.2 26.6 24.9 28.9
23.5 28.7
24.7 27.8 26.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Math Reading Writing
Percent of Students Making Catch-Up Growth by Subject, 2004 through 2014
We have also been able to track the percentage of students making enough growth to maintain proficiency.
10
57.2
64.1 62.8 62.1 60.0 62.6 60.7 62.4 60.9
63.4 62.4
73.5 78.8
81.8 81.7 80.7 82.0 81.5 79.0 81.1 81.5 80.7
66.8
72.5 73.2 73.8 71.8 74.3
71.0 73.7
70.5 74.2 72.4
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Math Reading Writing
Percent of Students Making Keep-Up Growth by Subject, 2004 through 2014
Over the past ten years, the state saw more students enrolled in its public schools; the numbers continue to grow.
11
757,668
876,999
2004 2014
PK-12 Public School Enrollment Public school enrollment grew by nearly 16%, or 119,331 new students between 2004 and 2014.
At the same time, there has been a shift in student needs.
12
91,751
126,750
2004 2014
228,710
367,784
2004 2014
PK-12 ELL Enrollment PK-12 FRL Enrollment
38% Increase
The English Language Learner population grew by 38% between 2004 and 2014.
61% Increase
The percentage of students qualified for free or reduced lunch increased by 61%, or 139,074 students, over the past 10 years.
Presentation Agenda
13
Historical Recap of Assessment System 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Subject 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Disaggregated Group 2014 Summary of Status and Growth Highlights
The percentage of students proficient or advanced across all grade levels in reading decreased by .6%; while grades 5 and 7 increased.
14
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
Grade
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced on CSAP/TCAP Reading, 2010-2014
In reading, adequate growth results decreased slightly.
15
40.9
%
35.5
%
26.7
% 36
.4%
29.1
%
20.1
%
37.6
%
32.7
%
26.7
% 37
.8%
31.3
%
26.6
% 34
.9%
31.3
%
25.9
%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
79.1
%
79.4
% 87
.6%
76.8
%
76.0
% 86
.0%
79.1
%
77.8
% 88
.7%
77.7
%
79.2
% 89
.9%
77.4
%
77.9
% 89
.0%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Students Making Catch-Up Growth, Reading
Percentage of Students Making Keep-Up Growth, Reading
Across al l grade levels , the percentage of students proficient or advanced in writ ing decreased by .7% compared to 2013; while grades 3 and 8 showed an increase.
16
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
Grade
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced on CSAP/TCAP Writing, 2010-2014
While the percentage of students making catch-up and keep-up growth in writing is lower compared to last year, results are higher than 2012.
17
Percentage of Students Making Catch-Up Growth, Writing
Percentage of Students Making Keep-Up Growth, Writing
72.9
%
66.0
% 76
.9%
76.5
%
68.4
% 78
.9%
72.6
%
65.4
% 76
.6%
74.3
%
70.8
% 79
.5%
73.6
%
68.5
% 77
.2%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
34.2
%
20.3
%
14.2
%
42.5
%
24.9
%
16.0
%
35.0
%
22.7
%
14.5
%
38.2
%
26.2
%
16.4
%
35.3
%
24.9
%
15.3
%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
The percentage of students who scored proficient or higher across al l grade levels in mathematics decreased .3% compared to 2013; results for grades 8 and 9 increased.
18
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
Grade
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced on CSAP/TCAP Mathematics, 2010-2014
The percentage of students making catch-up and keep-up growth in math is slightly less than last year.
19
Percentage of Students Making Catch-Up Growth, Math
Percentage of Students Making Keep-Up Growth, Math
25.7
%
12.2
%
4.7%
25.3
%
14.8
%
3.9%
23.0
%
12.4
%
4.4%
23.0
%
13.0
%
4.9%
20.2
%
12.3
%
4.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
61.1
%
56.5
% 68
.2%
66.3
%
55.8
% 67
.5%
62.4
%
56.1
% 67
.6%
64.8
%
58.1
%
71.2
%
64.0
%
57.2
% 69
.6%
Elementary Middle High
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Presentation Agenda
20
Historical Recap of Assessment System 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Subject 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Disaggregated Group 2014 Summary of Status and Growth Highlights
64.4 65.4 63.5 66.3 64.5 65.6 64.7
31.6 34.1 32.7 36.8 36.6 37.6 37.6
36.4 38 37.5 37 36.7 37.8 37.5
64.3 66 64.3 65.7 65.9 68.2 68.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
White Hispanic Black Asian
The achievement gap for black and Hispanic students has remained large with only slight narrowing.
21
Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in Writing by Race/Ethnicity All Grades Combined
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for reading and mathematics.
Gap in Proficiency CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 2012 TCAP 2013 TCAP 2014 White/Hispanic 32.8 31.3 30.8 29.5 27.9 28.0 27.1
White/Black 28.0 27.4 26.0 29.3 27.8 27.8 27.2 White/Asian 0.1 -0.6 -0.8 0.6 -1.4 -2.6 -3.8
Negative value denotes gap is closed and subgroup outperforms white students
32.9
39.4
31.2
36.6 32.6
36.9 35.1
20.2
24.0 20.6
23.2 20.3
22.5 21.4
18.6
24.3
18.3
23.6 21.5 23.2 22.0
30.9 33.5
28.5 34.2
28.3 32.8 30.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Asian Black Hispanic White
The growth gap for minority students mirrors that of the achievement gap.
22
Percent of Students Making Writing Catch-Up by Race/Ethnicity All Grades Combined
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for reading and mathematics .
Proficiency rates increased for English language learners faster than other student subgroups over the past six years.
23
Reading 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ELL Gap 35.4 35.0 32.9 31.8 31.4 29.0 29.2
37.9 38.9 41.0 41.6 43.5 45.8 45.2
73.3 73.9 73.9 73.4 74.9 74.8 74.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
and
Adv
ance
d
ELL Not ELL
Percent of English Language Learners Proficient or Advanced in Reading All Grades Combined
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for mathematics and writing.
However, the growth gap between English language learners and non-English language learners has remained steady.
24
Percent of English Language Learners Making Reading Catch-Up Growth All Grades Combined
27.9 28.4 30.4 26.0 27.5 29.5
26.7
34.8 35.9 37.0
30.8 35.1 33.4 33.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ELL NON-ELL
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for mathematics and writing.
The achievement gap for free and reduced lunch eligible students remains large.
25
Math 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRL Gap 27.3 27.3 26.5 27.3 28.0 27.8 28.2
35.5 37.3 38.7 39.5 39.5 40.7 40.1
62.8 64.6 65.2 66.8 67.5 68.5 68.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Stud
ents
Eligible Not Eligible
Percent of Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible Students Proficient or Advanced in Math All Grades Combined
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for reading and writing.
Th e g row t h g ap for F RL- e l ig ib le s t ud e nt s c omp a r e d t o n on F RL-e l ig ib le s t ud e nt s i s s m al le r i n m at h . How e ve r s t ud e nt s wh o a r e n’ t p rof ic ie nt a r e n ’ t m a k i n g s uf f ic ie nt g row t h t o r e a c h p rof ic ie n c y.
26
Percent of Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible Students Making Math Catch-Up Growth All Grades Combined
10.1 12.1 11.4 12.3 10.8 11.2 9.5
12.9 15.8 14.4 15.0 14.0 14.3 13.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
FRL-Eligible Not FRL-Eligible
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for reading and writing.
The achievement gap for students with disabilities widened over the past six years.
27
23.7% 23.6% 21.9% 21.0% 21.7% 21.5% 21.0%
72.2% 72.7% 72.9% 72.5% 74.0% 74.4% 74.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
and
Adv
ance
d
IEP Non IEP
Reading 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 IEP Gap 48.6 49.1 51.0 51.6 52.3 53.0 53.0
Percent of Students with Disabilities Proficient or Advanced in Reading All Grades Combined
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for math and writing.
The growth gap for students with disabilities is large; this is the case for all content areas.
28
Percent of Students with Disabilities Making Reading Catch-Up Growth All Grades Combined
17.1 19.0 18.1 15.8 17.8 16.6 16.9
37.2 38.0 39.8
33.4 37.2 37.2 35.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
IEP Not IEP
Although not shown, similar trends hold true for math and writing.
Districts Accredited with Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans in 2013 showed declines in proficiency in 2014, similar to the state.
29
Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced by Subject, Accreditation Rating and Year
51.6
35.9 38.7
50.4
38.3 39.7
52.6
38.9 40.0
53.9
40.2 41.6
49.8
35.5 36.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Reading Writing Math
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Presentation Agenda
30
Historical Recap of Assessment System 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Subject 2014 TCAP Assessment Status and Growth Results by Disaggregated Group 2014 Summary of Status and Growth Highlights
What do the data show?
31
Across all grades, all content areas had a decrease in the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Advanced compared to 2013 results. Fewer students made adequate growth this year compared to last year. Achievement gap results are mixed; some subgroups narrowed while others widened. Proficiency rates have consistently increased, with high median growth percentiles, for some districts and schools across the state. Districts accredited with Priority Improvement or Turnaround in 2013 showed a decline in the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Advanced in 2014, overall.
The data point to the need to provide more comprehensive and systematic support to districts to build their capacity to meet the needs of all students. The department is refining its strategic goal plan to include deep
district, school, and teacher supports during the transition year. We will have a new baseline for English language arts and math
results in 2015. This will need to be clearly communicated to all stakeholders and the public at large. CMAS assessments will more directly measure our new
standards and help us better understand how prepared students are for the new expectations.
Where do we go from here?
32
If you would like to dig deeper into the data, there are several ways to access assessment and growth results via SchoolView.org.
33
www.schoolview.org • Data Center • Colorado Growth Model • Growth Summaries • Data Lab (updated soon)